Response Rate in Mail Survey:
The Effect of Four Variables
Keywords:
Techniques, Questionnaire, MailAbstract
The present study investigated the effectiveness of mail survey technique in collecting data in Brasília, capital
city of Brazil. Using a random sample of 480 addresses, the effects of four variables on the response rate were studied: (1)
phone contact with the respondent, (2) type of the envelope used, (3) content of the introductory letter, and (4) saliency of
questionnaire topic. The overall response rate was 21.5%, increasing to 30% when respondents were contacted by phone, either
before or after the questionnaire had been mailed. The other variables had no significant influence on the response rate, and no
interaction effects between variables were observed. It was concluded that mail survey technique is an adequate procedure in
collecting data amoung the population studied; however, additional studies are necessary to determine which other factors
contribute to an increase in voluntary response rates in the Brazilian milieu.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Armstrong, J.S. & Lusk, E.J. (1987). Return postage in mail surveys.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 233-248.
Brunner, G.A. & Carroll, S.J., Jr. (1969). The effect of prior
notification on refusal rate in fixed address surveys. Journal of
Advertising Research, 9, 42-44.
Childers, T.L. & Ferrell, O.C. (1979). Response rates and perceived
questionnaire length in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16, 429-431.
Eichner, K. & Habermehl, W. (1981). Predicting response rates to
mailed questionnaires. American Sociological Review, 46,36]-
363.
Fidell, S. (1978). Nationwide urban noise survey. The Journal of
the Acoustical Society of American, 64, 198-206.
Fitzgerald, R. & Fuller, L. (1982). The effects of reluetant and
refusers on sample survey estimates. Sociological Methods &
Research, 11, 3-32.
Fox, R.J., Crask, M.R. & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate:
A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-491.
Frankel, M.R. & Frankel, L.R. (1987). Fifty years of survey sampling
in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 127-
138.
Goodstadt, M.S., Chung, L., Kronitz, R. & Cook, G. (1977). Mail
survey response rates: Their manipulation and impact. Journal
of Marketing Research, 14, 391-395.
Goyder, J. (1985). Face-to-face interviews and mailed questionnaires:
The net difference in response rate. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 49, 234-252.
Günther, H. & Lopes Jr., J. (1990). Perguntas abertas versus perguntas
fechadas: uma comparação empírica. Psicologia: Teoria
e Pesquisa, 6, 203-213.
Herberlein, T.A. & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting
response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis
of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43,
447-462.
Herzog, A.R. & Bachman, J.G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire
length on response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45,
549-559.
Houston, M.J. & Nevin, J.R. (1977). The effects of source and
appeal on mail survey response patterns. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14, 374-378.
Jeanne, E. & GuUahorn, J.T. (1963). An investigation of the effects
of three factors on response to mail questionnaires. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 27, 294-296.
Job, R.F.S. & Bullen, R.B. (1987). The effects of face-to-face
interview versus a group administred questionnaire in determining
reaction to noise in the workplace. Journal ofSound and
Vibration, 776,161-168.
Jussaume, R.A. & Yamada, Y. (1990). A comparison of the viability
of mail surveys in Japan and the United States. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229-247.
Kaplowitz, S.A. & Shlapentokh, V. (1982). Possible falsification
of survey data: Analysis of a mail survey in the Soviet Union.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 1-23.
Knobe, D. & Burke, R.B. (1983). Log-linear models. London: Sage
Publications.
Martin, J.D. & McConnell, J.P. (1970). Mail questionnaire response
induction: The effect of four variables on response of a random
sample to a difficult questionnaire. Social Science Quarterly,
57,409-414.
Mizes, J.S., Fleece, E.L. & Ross, C. (1984). Incentives for increasing
return rates: Magnitude leveis, response bias, and format.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 794-800.
Nederhof, A.J. (1983). The effects of material incentives in mail
surveys: Two studies. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 103-11.
Norusis, M.J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ version-4.0: Advanced statistics.
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Plog, S.C. (1963). Explanations for a high return rate on mail
questionnaire. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 297-298.
Rodrigues, A., Lobel, S.A., Jablonski, B., Monnerat, M., Corga, D.,
Diamico, K., Pereira, M. & Ferraz, A. (1988). A imagem do
político brasileiro. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa,4,2-\\.
Roeher, G.A. (1963). Effective techniques in increasing response
to mailed questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 299-
302.
Rucker, M., Hughes, R., Thompson, R., Harrison, A. & Vanderlip,
N. (1984). Personalization of mail surveys: Too much of a good
thing? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 893-
905.
Schuman, H. & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods. Em G. A.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Orgs.). Handbook of social psychology
(pp. 635-697). New York: Random House.
Schuman, H., Presser, S. & Ludwig, J. (1981). Context effects of
survey responses to questions about abortion. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 45, 216-223.
Siemiatycki, J. (1979). A comparison of mail, telephone, and interview
strategies for household health surveys. American Journal
of Public Health, 69, 238-245.
Solórzano, I. (1991). Padrões de respostas e taxas de participação
em levantamento de campo: aplicação ao problema do ruído
urbano. Dissertação de Mestrado. Brasília: Instituto de Psicologia,
UnB.
Sommer, R. & Sommer, B.B. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral
research: Tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tedin, K.L. & Hofstetter, C.R. (1982). The effect of cost and
importance factors on the return rate for single and multiple
mailings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 122-128.
Walker,B.J. &Burdick,R.K. (1977). Advance correspondence and
error in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14,
379-382.
Weinstein, N.D. (1980). Individual differences in criticai tendencies
and noise annoyance. Journal ofSound and Vibration, 68,
241-248.
Williams, B.J., Weeks, M.F. & Bryan, F.A. (1984). Effects of an
advance telephone call in a personal interview survey. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 48, 650-657.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 233-248.
Brunner, G.A. & Carroll, S.J., Jr. (1969). The effect of prior
notification on refusal rate in fixed address surveys. Journal of
Advertising Research, 9, 42-44.
Childers, T.L. & Ferrell, O.C. (1979). Response rates and perceived
questionnaire length in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16, 429-431.
Eichner, K. & Habermehl, W. (1981). Predicting response rates to
mailed questionnaires. American Sociological Review, 46,36]-
363.
Fidell, S. (1978). Nationwide urban noise survey. The Journal of
the Acoustical Society of American, 64, 198-206.
Fitzgerald, R. & Fuller, L. (1982). The effects of reluetant and
refusers on sample survey estimates. Sociological Methods &
Research, 11, 3-32.
Fox, R.J., Crask, M.R. & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate:
A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-491.
Frankel, M.R. & Frankel, L.R. (1987). Fifty years of survey sampling
in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 127-
138.
Goodstadt, M.S., Chung, L., Kronitz, R. & Cook, G. (1977). Mail
survey response rates: Their manipulation and impact. Journal
of Marketing Research, 14, 391-395.
Goyder, J. (1985). Face-to-face interviews and mailed questionnaires:
The net difference in response rate. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 49, 234-252.
Günther, H. & Lopes Jr., J. (1990). Perguntas abertas versus perguntas
fechadas: uma comparação empírica. Psicologia: Teoria
e Pesquisa, 6, 203-213.
Herberlein, T.A. & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting
response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis
of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43,
447-462.
Herzog, A.R. & Bachman, J.G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire
length on response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45,
549-559.
Houston, M.J. & Nevin, J.R. (1977). The effects of source and
appeal on mail survey response patterns. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14, 374-378.
Jeanne, E. & GuUahorn, J.T. (1963). An investigation of the effects
of three factors on response to mail questionnaires. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 27, 294-296.
Job, R.F.S. & Bullen, R.B. (1987). The effects of face-to-face
interview versus a group administred questionnaire in determining
reaction to noise in the workplace. Journal ofSound and
Vibration, 776,161-168.
Jussaume, R.A. & Yamada, Y. (1990). A comparison of the viability
of mail surveys in Japan and the United States. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229-247.
Kaplowitz, S.A. & Shlapentokh, V. (1982). Possible falsification
of survey data: Analysis of a mail survey in the Soviet Union.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 1-23.
Knobe, D. & Burke, R.B. (1983). Log-linear models. London: Sage
Publications.
Martin, J.D. & McConnell, J.P. (1970). Mail questionnaire response
induction: The effect of four variables on response of a random
sample to a difficult questionnaire. Social Science Quarterly,
57,409-414.
Mizes, J.S., Fleece, E.L. & Ross, C. (1984). Incentives for increasing
return rates: Magnitude leveis, response bias, and format.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 794-800.
Nederhof, A.J. (1983). The effects of material incentives in mail
surveys: Two studies. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 103-11.
Norusis, M.J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ version-4.0: Advanced statistics.
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Plog, S.C. (1963). Explanations for a high return rate on mail
questionnaire. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 297-298.
Rodrigues, A., Lobel, S.A., Jablonski, B., Monnerat, M., Corga, D.,
Diamico, K., Pereira, M. & Ferraz, A. (1988). A imagem do
político brasileiro. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa,4,2-\\.
Roeher, G.A. (1963). Effective techniques in increasing response
to mailed questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 299-
302.
Rucker, M., Hughes, R., Thompson, R., Harrison, A. & Vanderlip,
N. (1984). Personalization of mail surveys: Too much of a good
thing? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 893-
905.
Schuman, H. & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods. Em G. A.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Orgs.). Handbook of social psychology
(pp. 635-697). New York: Random House.
Schuman, H., Presser, S. & Ludwig, J. (1981). Context effects of
survey responses to questions about abortion. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 45, 216-223.
Siemiatycki, J. (1979). A comparison of mail, telephone, and interview
strategies for household health surveys. American Journal
of Public Health, 69, 238-245.
Solórzano, I. (1991). Padrões de respostas e taxas de participação
em levantamento de campo: aplicação ao problema do ruído
urbano. Dissertação de Mestrado. Brasília: Instituto de Psicologia,
UnB.
Sommer, R. & Sommer, B.B. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral
research: Tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tedin, K.L. & Hofstetter, C.R. (1982). The effect of cost and
importance factors on the return rate for single and multiple
mailings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 122-128.
Walker,B.J. &Burdick,R.K. (1977). Advance correspondence and
error in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14,
379-382.
Weinstein, N.D. (1980). Individual differences in criticai tendencies
and noise annoyance. Journal ofSound and Vibration, 68,
241-248.
Williams, B.J., Weeks, M.F. & Bryan, F.A. (1984). Effects of an
advance telephone call in a personal interview survey. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 48, 650-657.
Downloads
Published
2012-09-24
How to Cite
Velôso Gouveia, V., & Günther, H. (2012). Response Rate in Mail Survey:: The Effect of Four Variables. Psicologia: Teoria E Pesquisa, 11(2), 163–168. Retrieved from https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17244
Issue
Section
Artigos
